Re: AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

While I strongly support WGs, I believe that under he rules we set  
for this exercise we should remove the statement of support for WGs.
a.

On 27 nov 2007, at 10.23, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Just boarding for a 10 hr flight so likely my last opportunity to
> comment on this.
>
> I would support Tom's suggestion. Being willing to give WGs a try  
> is not
> really support for recommendation. We should be clear about all  
> views on
> this.
>
> Tim
> Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail.
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
> > From: "Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue, November 27, 2007 3:01 am
> > To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>,        "'Council
> > GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> >    Hi Philip,
> >
> >    as I just wrote in my last mail. I do
> >    not think that we are in unanimous
> >    agreement of the recommendation
> >    therefore we should strike it from the
> >    list.
> >
> >    tom
> >      ___________________________________
> >    Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >    [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
> >    Auftrag von Philip Sheppard
> >    Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2007
> >    09:45
> >    An: 'Council GNSO'
> >    Betreff: [council] Draft reply Council
> >    on GNSO reform
> >    If I read Council right (thanks Chuck,
> >    Avri, Adrian),
> >    I will amend to "qualified support"
> >    where I previously wrote "partial
> >    support".
> >
> >    I think we are all on the same page
> >    here.
> >    (Chuck we are not advocating task forces
> >    here just laying down a marker for
> >    flexibility which I note you support).
> >
> >    Philip